This morning on Canada AM, the crew I enjoy watching threw a curve ball out there when discussing the stem cell research position Michael J. Fox holds and the criticism Rush Limbaugh gave Mr. Fox. The conversation appeared to make Rush Limbaugh out to be a monster for criticizing Michael J. Fox’s promotion of candidates who support stem cell research.
I am one who thinks Rush may have crossed a line and I was glad to hear he apologized, but I must point out that CTV made Michael J. Fox sound like a hero without giving the story due diligence.
There are many types of stem cell research, as I have reported in the past. And for Michael J. Fox and the CTV to not differentiate which ones are being discussed is wrong. From Mr. Fox’s perspective, he has a vested interest in any research which may cure his Parkinson’s so he is biased. From the CTV’s perspective, they should report the differences.
These include the fact that Adult stem cell research has cured many things, as has umbilical cord stem cell research, whereas embryonic has not cured anything. The first two are legal in most western nations. It is the embryonic stem cell research that is in question.
I think both Mr. Fox and the CTV need to do a bit more homework.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
I think the MJF and the CTV were quite aware of the truth behind stem cells when they cited their opinions. The current laws in no way prevent them from conducting somatic stem cell research, they know what they’re lobbying for.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
There’s no “may” here – Rush DID cross a line, and at that moment, he was a complete monster. His apology was not suited to the act, either.
There’s a way for everyone to discuss sensitive issues without making fun of others and mocking their illnesses.
I just don’t know what to think on this matter and am not sure what to support or oppose – a person like me welcomes adult, grown up debate, and Rush ruined the whole thing for an entire election. He and his childish mockery have become the story, not the debate.
So for you to half-heartedly speculate he “may” have “crossed a line” is dishonest, I think. There’s no defending what he did, and while he’s apologized for teasing an ill person, he has yet to apologize for destroying an important discussion until another 2 years down the road.
Usually like your site, man, but this is too much – you’re wrong in your assessment of Rush here.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Jason, you are always welcome here and your opinion is taken to heart. I was too light on Rush. I am still glad he apologized and got a chance to hear his apology. It actually didn’t sound like much of an apology to me, but he did get the required “i’m sorry” in there.
But this story is not really about Rush (as you seem to support). My key point is that both the CTV and MJF have not broken down the different types of stem cell research in what appears to be a blatant attempt to get those who do not understand the differences to support stem cell research of all kinds. The cures that adult and umbilical cord SCR have cured are numerous and the candidates MJF is supporting are promoting embryonic SCR which is still rejected by many as it promotes abortion for the sake of science which in turn may promote pregnancy for the sake of the embryos. It is a very contentious issue with very key differences and the CTV ignored to mention them.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Did CTV interview anyone from the other perspective, or was this a free ticket for Fox to present his case unopposed and (as you imply) cheered on by the CTV interviewer?
I spent some time reviewing the online MSM news reports, TV news and even Limbaugh’s website which has detailed coverage, including:
– that Fox had previously admitted to not taking his meds before a Senate committe for more dramatic effect. This led Limbaugh to question why Fox’s behavior was so unusual during the ad.
– that Fox admitted he didn’t know what was on the ballot question re: Embryonic stem cell research in the state where he was supporting the Democrat. (According to Limbaugh’s site, it will enable embryonic cloning for stem cell harvesting.) Why did Fox not do his own research before endorsing a candidate?
Regarding accusations that Limbaugh mocked Fox, he denies this and I accept his explanation.
Regarding Fox’s political campaign ad, below is an informative letter to the editor from the Oct 31 National Post from a medical expert from a persepctive that perhaps CTV missed out on.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=9eeae5c9-c9ff-4eab-8ef1-907ae94b1326
Limbaugh not far off on Fox, neurologist says
National Post
Published: Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Michael J. Fox in an advertisement for a Democratic Senate candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research.
Re: Oct. 28 editorial cartoon, showing Rush Limbaugh shouting into a radio microphone, with a technician saying, “He must be off his meds.”
There is no doubt that the U.S. radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh’s direct style and his own past medication issues make him an inviting target. And although he was, in all probability, technically inaccurate in accusing Michael J. Fox of “acting” in his recent political TV ad supporting a Democratic senatorial candidate, Mr. Limbaugh may have been very close to the mark.
As a neurologist with a large number of Parkinson’s disease patients, my impression of the video is that Mr. Fox displayed the poorly controlled “choreo-athetotic” movements seen when advanced Parkinson’s patients take their medication to turn “on” and emerge from their natural state of rigidity and rest tremor. At some point after taking a pill, a patient’s voluntary movements are freed up, without much excess involuntary movement.
The issue, then, is one of timing. Indeed, a few days after his political ad came out, Mr. Fox appeared at a Democratic event in Chicago with his movements under control, a situation he called “ironic.” Strangely, however, he seemed unable to appear controlled for a pre-taped TV ad a few days earlier, when the appropriate timing should have been easier, given the possibility of multiple “takes.” Lest this all sound too cynical, consider that Mr. Fox admitted in his 2002 autobiography to going off his medication to appear more disabled before a 1999 Senate subcommittee appearance.
Democratic party manipulation appears to go much further. In offering Mr. Fox as a spokesman, they have clearly hoped he would cut a sympathetic figure immune from criticism, and the faux outrage at Mr. Limbaugh’s comments seems to confirm this. While Mr. Fox deserves sympathy for this medical plight, he must assume full responsibility for his words and actions when he chooses to enter the political arena. By politicizing a medical issue, he is, in effect, saying that anyone who cares about new treatment hope for Parkinson’s disease patients must vote for the the Democratic candidate in Missouri — not coincidentally, a pivotal state in the upcoming election to control the U.S. Senate.
This is not only unfair, but absurd. Everyone, including Republicans, supports the many new treatments emerging for Parkinson’s patients that promise far more immediate application than do stem cells. Republicans also support stem cell research when it comes from ethically sound sources, such as adult tissues and umbilical cord blood. Ironically, these forms of stem cells have had greater success to date than the embryonic-source stem cells lionized in the Michael J. Fox TV ad.
Dr. Paul Ranalli, FRCPC, Toronto.
© National Post 2006
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Hm, that’s very possible – I didn’t see the CTV bit, personally. MJF’s ad I saw on youtube.com – I just thought it was short (like all poli-ads, I guess). It’s a difficult issue to wrestle with because it is so multi-faceted – there’s many, many different morals to wrestle with because there are so many different aspects.
Really, I just get upset over that Rush clip. When it first happened, I only heard the accusation, which I thought was silly, but – whatever. It was days later that I saw a clip of him actually mocking Fox – that second, I was done with Limbaugh. I had no idea he’d gone that far, and any self-respecting media outlet (ha ha) would fire him.
I’m sure you’re absolutely right about CTV. TV news is just the worst. I think Fox – in a very short (30 seconds, I guess?) ad opened a debate, for people like Limbaugh and CTV to kick around. Limbaugh ruined it for everyone by going kindergarten over it, and it sounds like CTV did nothing to fix the situation – so shame on them both.
Which is really the reason I prefer blogs to tv, I guess – far more indepth and on-topic.
CTV should absolutely, one hundred percent have mentioned exactly what you mention – it’s their responsibility to educate and inform.
Pingback:
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
OfficiallyScrewed.com » Strike Two For CTV On Stem Cell Research Stories
Pingback:
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
OfficiallyScrewed.com » Dr. Marla Swings And Misses On Stem Cell Research. CTV Strikes Out.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
“From Mr. Fox’s perspective, he has a vested interest in any research which may cure his Parkinson’s so he is biased.”
Surely, the call for balance cannot be met, for anyone without Parkinson’s has an equally ‘vested interest’ in maintaining an air of indifferent ignorance to outright prejudice disguised as apathy.
The research discourse is similarily clouded (and so very very evident) when the word cannabis is used in the same paragraph as preventative or ameliorative meds.
Prejudice and fears are both promulgated and tolerated for nothing short of political self interest and agenda.